Recent News

Cargo Space and Storage Rating:

When it comes to practicality, the CTS holds its own but is hardly the practicality king. Although it has a couple of tricks up its sleeve—such as a handy hidden smartphone cubby in the dash—its middling trunk capacity, high lift-over height, and smallish interior-storage bins contribute to an average score in this category.

What’s New for 2017?

Cadillac has changed nothing about the CTS’s trunk or interior cubby storage, so our test results of the 2017 model shown in the illustrations below carry over to 2018.

2017 Cadillac CTS

We use carry-on-luggage-size boxes to measure cargo capacity with the rear seats in place as well as folded.

Test Results: Carry-On Luggage

Cargo Configurations

Cargo Volume Comparisons

The Cadillac’s 14-cubic-foot trunk matches that of the Audi and Volvo but is bested by the 19-cubic-foot hold of the BMW.

Lift-Over Height

To make matters worse, CTS owners will have to lift their cargo higher off the ground to clear the rear bumper. Remember: Lift with your legs!

Our 6' tester shows how high a standard piece of carry-on luggage has to be lifted to put it into the trunk.

Test Results: Lift-Over Height

Interior Cubby Storage

Cubby storage inside the cabin is disappointing, with few places to stash smaller items. A hidden storage cubby behind the climate controls is a neat bonus and offers a USB port, making it an ideal place to stash a smartphone. The trunk also offers three large bins, two of which are hidden under the cargo floor.

Why do we use ping-pong balls?

To determine the interior space available to stash travel essentials, we’ve devised a range of measuring protocols. We use six beverage containers ranging in size and shape to gauge cupholder accommodation. We stack, stuff, and arrange 9-by-14-by-22-inch cardboard boxes to quantify the number of airline-carry-on-size suitcases that will fit in a trunk or folded seat’s cargo space. To measure irregularly shaped gloveboxes, door pockets, and console bins, we fill each container with 1.5-inch-diameter ping-pong balls. It’s tempting to convert the number of spheres to a volume (cubic inches), but we resist that calculation because—as with the box of tissues, 12-ounce can of soda, or gallon of milk you might stash in these compartments—there are voids between the balls. Random packing (our procedure) nullifies approximately one-third of the available space. The negative space between the balls could theoretically be reduced to 25 percent of an irregular shape with precise stacking, but while we might be pedantic, we’re not crazy.